Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
IF DRA Fails?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vantexan" data-source="post: 1280464" data-attributes="member: 24302"><p>Do you not remember the '94 midterm election was called "The Year of the Angry White Male?" It was because Clinton tried things in his first two years that was harming business. He realized after the Republicans took over both the House and Senate for the first time in 50 years due to his policies that he had to change or he wouldn't be reelected. He hire a Republican campaign specialist, Dick Morris, to advise him. He went center-right on every issue, making many Republican ideas his own. And he benefitted immensely from the Dot.com boom in Silicon Valley. So there's your 90's for you, a Republican Congress and a Democrat acting like a Republican. Remember it was Clinton who signed both NAFTA and the Welfare Reform Act into law, both very Republican ideas. Ask the unions how they feel about NAFTA! As far as businessmen cashing in, it's a serious problem that's not going away. But policies that stifle growth don't hurt the big guys. They've demonstrated in the last 6 years that they're going to get theirs' no matter the economy, primarily by laying off employees or stagnating pay and eliminating benefits. If there isn't an expanding economy that requires hiring to keep up then there's limited opportunity for good careers and very dim futures for young adults. If such a thing could be created by expanding government Obama would have already saved the planet with his spending. Bottom line is I don't care if Fred S has a ton of money and lives a "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" life. I only care that he pays fairly, and that will only happen in a good economy where he has to compete for workers. When people gladly accept a Ground job with lower pay and no benefits that says there isn't a good economy with good paying jobs to choose from. We can't all be Fred S, but we can demand that our government has policies that spurs growth and gives us the chance through hard work to have a better life. No doubt that the people running our major corporations have done alot of damage through greed. But so has both government and unions. And it's easily seen that in States that are business friendly that people are working and thriving compared to States that have high regulation, litigation, and union participation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vantexan, post: 1280464, member: 24302"] Do you not remember the '94 midterm election was called "The Year of the Angry White Male?" It was because Clinton tried things in his first two years that was harming business. He realized after the Republicans took over both the House and Senate for the first time in 50 years due to his policies that he had to change or he wouldn't be reelected. He hire a Republican campaign specialist, Dick Morris, to advise him. He went center-right on every issue, making many Republican ideas his own. And he benefitted immensely from the Dot.com boom in Silicon Valley. So there's your 90's for you, a Republican Congress and a Democrat acting like a Republican. Remember it was Clinton who signed both NAFTA and the Welfare Reform Act into law, both very Republican ideas. Ask the unions how they feel about NAFTA! As far as businessmen cashing in, it's a serious problem that's not going away. But policies that stifle growth don't hurt the big guys. They've demonstrated in the last 6 years that they're going to get theirs' no matter the economy, primarily by laying off employees or stagnating pay and eliminating benefits. If there isn't an expanding economy that requires hiring to keep up then there's limited opportunity for good careers and very dim futures for young adults. If such a thing could be created by expanding government Obama would have already saved the planet with his spending. Bottom line is I don't care if Fred S has a ton of money and lives a "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" life. I only care that he pays fairly, and that will only happen in a good economy where he has to compete for workers. When people gladly accept a Ground job with lower pay and no benefits that says there isn't a good economy with good paying jobs to choose from. We can't all be Fred S, but we can demand that our government has policies that spurs growth and gives us the chance through hard work to have a better life. No doubt that the people running our major corporations have done alot of damage through greed. But so has both government and unions. And it's easily seen that in States that are business friendly that people are working and thriving compared to States that have high regulation, litigation, and union participation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
The Competition
FedEx Discussions
IF DRA Fails?
Top